Jungle Queen

What is Jungle Queen?

According to the Gaming Machine Tax Act 2001, a tax rebate of up to 1.85% of a club’s gaming machine profits is made available to any registered club that records profits of over $1 million (US$715,000) during a tax year. 

This is only possible if the club in question allocates at least 0.75% of prescribed profits over $1 million to community-focused activities and services. These profits make up two-thirds of the ClubGRANTS scheme funding. 

The final third derives from a further 0.4% of a club’s gaming machine profits over $1 million during a tax year. 

What is Jungle Queen?

That familiarity is the point. BGaming explained that the game has been inspired by the success of other games featuring the Duel mechanic. In other words, the studio is iterating on a framework it already trusts and attaching its most recognizable characters to it.

The commercial profile stays within conventional bounds. The game serves up a maximum win of ×5,000, with a 97% RTP and medium-high volatility. A layered Buy Bonus menu sits on top of the base engine, offering variations of the Free Spins round rather than a separate headline mechanic.

The most distinctive product choice is presentational. Chicken and Johnny Cash are brought to life with voiced exchanges between the two characters, a detail BGaming describes as an industry-first for the studio and one aimed squarely at retention rather than math.

How to play Jungle Queen

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”

This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.